Talk-Polywell.org

I looked at that Anthony Watts and tobacco claim and frankly the deeper I look into it the more delusional it looks. I think it started with one smear that may or may not have been correct and snowballed. One smear for somebody in particular(Robert Spencer?) has been used to paint with a broad brush:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... ony-watts/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/02/ ... nnections/
Of course the habit of certain types to just make it up and spread FUD around doesn't help to clarify the issues.:
http://my.firedoglake.com/cgibson/tag/anthony-watts/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28 ... ine/191545
Especially when people misinterpret what they see based on beliefs. Of course basing you arguments on stolen and faked documents:
http://heartland.org/press-releases/201 ... -documents
doesn't help your cause. Of course the AGW people have a long history of ad hominum attacks rather than using data to make an argument:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/07/g ... its-point/

Very scathing: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/0 ... -the-week/

And at the end this tidbit: "UPDATE: Pielke, Sr. has commented on the video, complaining that it links deniers like Watts to the tobacco issue. GetEnergySmartNow explains why the link is a fair one."

The link: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07/28 ... gh-or-cry/

Now, in all fairness, I cannot see a direct link between Willard and the tobacco industry; but Lindzen has such a link. Likely my source confused them. I'll notify them, assuming it wasn't me.